[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Terror Troll I'm 'logically illiterate' for knowing that I own my own property and don't require 'authorisation' to modify it?[/quote]lol, no, Troll. He just said you're one of the logically smart people. He was saying the ones who can't understand the rule is kind of rediculous and doesn't say what is intended are the logically illiterate...or he is just saying dumb it down to "No mod discussion."

I'm 'logically illiterate' for knowing that I own my own property and don't require 'authorisation' to modify it? [Edited on 01.26.2011 5:17 PM PST]

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Primum Agmen We're just asking for the word to be moved around. Honestly, is that really that difficult?[/quote] This is where I think the majority of us arguing about this topic can agree.. Move it, reword it, make it logically understandable for logically illiterate members. Make sense yes? [Edited on 01.26.2011 5:13 PM PST]

And this is why I asked to see the actual stuff. I was confused as to whether that was for XBL or for the actual hardware because it was in terms of "the Service". Good thing I asked for more information on it. hehe.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Telec "12. Service Operation and Equipment. Any attempt to disassemble, decompile, create derivative works of, reverse engineer, modify, further sublicense, distribute, or use for other purposes the Service, any game, application, or other content available or accessible through the Service, or any hardware or software associated with the Service or with an original Xbox or Xbox 360 console is strictly prohibited and may result in cancellation of your account and/or your ability to access the Service, and the pursuit of other legal remedies by Microsoft. Microsoft may take any legal action it deems appropriate against users who violate Microsoft's systems or network security, this contract or any additional terms incorporated or referenced in this contract, and such users may also incur criminal or civil liability." how much more clearly do you want MS to put it?[/quote]You're confusing Xbox live terms of use with modification of the Xbox hardware. So, Microsoft are indeed allowed to ban you from XBL for modding. However, this does not mean modding is illegal or unauthorised - it's not. In this instance, Telec, you're quite wrong, and elmicker's point about confusing the terms of use of a service (Xbox Live) and those of the actual hardware (Xbox/Xbox 360) is quite valid. Very bad mistake to make. [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Telec It seems fairly obvious that "unauthorised" applies to the manufacturer's wishes. Yet here you are, getting into arguments about legal precedent. In case you hadn't noticed, the new rules have a focus upon individual application of common sense. Why don' you deploy some?[/quote]Ah, but the manufacturer doesn't have any rights in this instance, the issue isn't whether modding is legal or not (it is), the issue is about what discussion is allowed on Bungie.net. It's (quite clearly) not a legal issue, for the reasons me and elmicker have gone into, and even Achronos has been quite happy to say it's nothing to do with legality. So, for instance, Microsoft hasn't authorised Kinect hacks, but Bungie are quite fond of the idea of allowing discussion of them. So, basically, you're a few pages behind, Telec, and you're still not grasping the point. The rule, as it is, makes no sense once any thought is given to it. It needs reformulating as "no unauthorised discussion" to actually mean what they want to it mean - as in, that discussion of modifications is to be done only with the express permission of the mods/web team. It's a simple change, and it makes the rule make sense. It's not that I didn't get what the rule meant - everything in the rule except the word "unauthorised" is perfectly clear. That word is just placed in a daft place, giving the rule a far greater vagueness than needed to exist. We're just asking for the word to be moved around. Honestly, is that really that difficult? [Edited on 01.26.2011 5:08 PM PST]

Not really arguing so much as advocating sensible rules. Ones which actually make sense.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Telec [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Terror Troll That doesn't denote authority. Extremely important difference between 'compliance of terms' and 'authority'.[/quote]they've quite clearly stated that they don't approve of this sort of thing.[/quote]Telec, good enough for me..well, almost. Not that I don't trust you, just that I don't trust people on the internet. I want to see the actual agreement. But I'm pretty close to convinced as it is. Troll, now you appear to be the one arguing for the sake of arguing.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Terror Troll That doesn't denote authority. Extremely important difference between 'compliance of terms' and 'authority'.[/quote]they've quite clearly stated that they don't approve of this sort of thing.

That doesn't denote authority. Extremely important difference between 'compliance of terms' and 'authority'.

right, Stacker me old chum: I've no intention of getting into an argument with Primum, but anyone who keeps on at the same anvil after yea many pages leaves me wondering what is going on. As for take a chill pill: well, it is something of an idiosyncrasy, but the basic point is that getting into one over possible interpretations of a word when the spirit of the rule is pretty clear to deduce for anyone who is thus inclined is just a waste of time. "no company has made it so certain modifications are "unauthorized"" xbox terms of use: "12. Service Operation and Equipment. Any attempt to disassemble, decompile, create derivative works of, reverse engineer, modify, further sublicense, distribute, or use for other purposes the Service, any game, application, or other content available or accessible through the Service, or any hardware or software associated with the Service or with an original Xbox or Xbox 360 console is strictly prohibited and may result in cancellation of your account and/or your ability to access the Service, and the pursuit of other legal remedies by Microsoft. Microsoft may take any legal action it deems appropriate against users who violate Microsoft's systems or network security, this contract or any additional terms incorporated or referenced in this contract, and such users may also incur criminal or civil liability." how much more clearly do you want MS to put it?

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Telec [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Primum Agmen [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Telec yes, but you are being remarkably obtuse.[/quote]How?[/quote]It seems fairly obvious that "unauthorised" applies to the manufacturer's wishes. Yet here you are, getting into arguments about legal precedent.[/quote]I had to laugh at this because it's been stated so many times that it has nothing to do with legal precedence. It's about how the term changes the rule from what Achronos and bnet intend to what it is now: something entirely different. And this has been settled with other people. You're obviously dead set on arguing with Agmen about the issue. [quote][twat] [i]Take a chill pill[/i] [/twat][/quote]I'm sure you meant that for Agmen as well, but what the hell is this supposed to do aside from make you look like you can't think of anything else to say in your arguement so you're going to say the most random thing that comes to mind? [quote]In case you hadn't noticed, the new rules have a focus upon individual application of common sense. Why don' you deploy some?[/quote]Common sense would tell me if something says we can't talk about unauthorized modding that it would mean I am not to talk about things that the public has been told they cannot do to their hardware and software. I'm sorry but no company has made it so certain modifications are "unauthorized" so that ruins the validity of both the rule at present and your arguement about common sense.

The manufacturers likely couldn't care less what we do with our consoles. [Edited on 01.26.2011 4:35 PM PST]

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Primum Agmen [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Telec yes, but you are being remarkably obtuse.[/quote]How?[/quote]It seems fairly obvious that "unauthorised" applies to the manufacturer's wishes. Yet here you are, getting into arguments about legal precedent. [twat] [i]Take a chill pill[/i] [/twat] In case you hadn't noticed, the new rules have a focus upon individual application of common sense. Why don' you deploy some?

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Stacker I feel almost like you guys started into this discussion further merely to bump the thread because the entire issue has already been put out.[/quote] Couldn't agree more with that. No need to repeat your self in a follow up post but seriously let this die. I'm sure we all understand what the argument is about and I highly doubt anything will be done to change the terminology.

I feel almost like you guys started into this discussion further merely to bump the thread because the entire issue has already been put out. And whoever said that crud about the rule needing to be vague, think about what you're saying. If it's "vague" saying "no unauthorized modding" it's sending the wrong message because that's about what companies like Microsoft say you cannot do to the equipment once you have bought it, nothing else. If it's "vague" saying "no modding" that means no modding. Period. And it's definitely not the former that is intended, as Achronos clearly pointed out. [Edited on 01.26.2011 4:23 PM PST]

Er, what? How? Give me some examples of decorating one's console being 'shady'. That's absolutely ludicrous. You've bought something, it's your property, you're not doing anything 'unauthorised' of any sort.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Terror Troll Why not? If I wanted to, I should be able to talk about decorating my console without being banned.[/quote] Achronos says, makes sense though, because it generally just makes less of a potential problem or risk on forum, because the whole modding area of discussion is kinda shady to bnet

It is completely ridiculous. Watching achronos refuse to change the wording of the rules out of some strange sense of pride is just pathetic tbh.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Terror Troll Why not? If I wanted to, I should be able to talk about decorating my console without being banned.[/quote]Yeah, it seems kinda ridiculous.

Why not? If I wanted to, I should be able to talk about decorating my console without being banned.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] coolmike699 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] HeyBlade789 To stop people discussing modded xbox's.[/quote] OK. But plenty of mods are perfectly fine. If I spray painted a design onto the faceplate, that's a modification. [/quote] But no one needs to discuss how to spray paint a decal on the faceplate. Also, a lot of people don't consider modding (or at least some kinds of mods) to be cheating. All those threads about modding their Halo Reach 4-digit call sign to be the marathon symbol is evidence of this.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] halomcee IMO.[/quote]That isn't the issue. The issue is over what 'unauthorised' is. There is no authority determining whether you can modify your console. Especially when you consider that people from all sorts of countries log into these forums. [Edited on 01.26.2011 3:27 PM PST]

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] coolmike699 If it's to prevent cheating, why not just combing this rule with the rule about cheating?[/quote] The rule is to indeed prevent cheating but also to stop the "I just found a modder" as it says: [quote][b][i]Do not discuss[/i] unauthorized modification of console game hardware or software[/b], even if you're not trying to cheat or pirate.[/quote] IMO.

How about the existing clause is replaced with 'Discussion threads of the modification of gaming hardware and software (consoles, controllers, ec) may be locked without warning'. This gives wriggle room to the moderators for them to use their discretion instead of having a poorly written clause about who has authority over one's property.

The problem is that if someone were to read the rules and interpret them in the way someone like elm would on reading them for the first time, they would think that Xbox moding, iPhone jailbreaking, and Kinect hacking were all completely fine (except when connecting to Xbox live). So the general rule actually conveys something different than what is desired.

The rule on this subject must be vague in order for it to mean anything at all as a rule. Whilst this seems counterintuitive - think about the purpose of the rule in the first place. It justifies locking / deleting posts when the moderators can clearly see the post encourages or aids someone doing something somewhere that may be interpreted as a bad thing by one big company or another who may or may not try to take efforts against Bungie for discussing such things. To detail every possible scenario would be impossible. Xbox modding? No. iPhone jailbreaking? Nope. Kinect hacking? Not sure... Windows Phone 7 modding? Well, it is actively encouraged... but can we encourage it too? How to fix a broken Xbox? Well, I guess we use our judgement here. Let's let the thread roll until some fool starts talking about modchips. You see? Why detail every scenario when a vague rule does the job more accurately! 0_o